U A 

2 3 W. 






cy^JUaA. , Oitg^ul^ r. 



M 



luAjc- Oajl ^'\. Q-i^^^ . 



V; 



WHERE ARE OUR GUNS? 



SPEECH 



HON. AUGUSTUS p/gARDNER 

OF M_A.SS^CJEIXJSK1?'X'S 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



JANUARY 21, 1915 






78958—14456 



WASHINGTON 
1915 







D. rf D. 
AR 30 19 5 



r- 



Where Are Our Guns! 
SPEECH 

OF 

HON. AUGUSTUS P. GARDNER. 

Tlio House in Committee of the Whole Honso on the state of the Union 
had under consideration the bill (H. R. 2().'!47) making appropriations 
for (he support of the Army for the fiscal year ending .June 80, 1016. 

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairmau, the gentleman from Ala- 
bama [Mr. Dent] said one thing this morning that impi-essed 
me. Ho said that of all the people who are talking abont mi- 
prepa redness for war not one tells us how to be prepared. Of 
course not, because there are eight different committees in the 
House and Senate that have jurisdiction of that question. How 
can they lay out an intelligent progi'am? What I ask for is a 
commission ai)pointed by the President and the Speaker of the 
House and the I'resident of thp Senate to make those very 
recommendations as to preparedness which no sensible man 
would undertake to make in default of proper information. 

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AND ASIATIC EXCLUSION. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Monroe doctrine stands like a 
flaming sword notifying Europe that she will not be nermitted to 
colonize South America or Mexico. Do you suppose that that 
flaming sword is going to be effective against impoverished 
nations teeming with population unless we have something sub- 
stantial in the way of military power with which to back it U]i? 
You might just as well expect a hungry hyena to respect the 
defenselessness of an unprotected bone. ^loreover, we have 
looked the proudest nation of Asia square in the eyes and we 
have said to those fighting Japanese. " We will have none of 
you here. We don't want you within our borders." The 
Japanese Government professes friendship for America, you 
s:y. True enough; but suppose that some fine day the people 
of Japan should wake up and say to their Government, " We 
demand from the people of the United States the same treat- 
meuL which they give to other nations." The Jajianese will 
never be so unreasonable, you think. Won't they? How do 
you know? In these days the wisest man can't look very far 
into the millstone of the future. After all, is it so very un- 
reasonalile from the Jai)anese point of view, I wonder? 

We don't know whether or not the Japanese are going to de- 
mand the same treatment as other nations for their people who 
desire to come to this country. But suppose they do make Ihe 
demand. What is our answer going to be? Shall we let them in 
as if they were Europeans? Shall we grant them naturaliza- 
tion? Never by my vote, I hope, nor will I arbitrate that ques- 
tion, either; nor will the American people arbitrate that ques- 
tion any more than they will arbitrate the Monroe doctrine. 
78958—14456 3 



Ask any Member from the Pacific coast whether he will vote to 
arbitrate the question of Mongolian exclusion. Just ask him 
and see what he says. As to this philosophy of an international 
government based on The brotherhood of man, that may come 
in the sweet by and by. when Californians have learned to 
intermarry with Chinese and Mississippians have begun to 
select negresses for their wives. 

TWO GENTLEMEN OF VIRGINIA. 

Three years ago this Committee on Military Affairs carried 
through the House of Representatives a bill reducing the Army 
of the United States; and there stands the gentleman who did 
it — the chairman of this committee. Fortunately the Senate 
did not pass that bill. I have not forgotten the gentleman's 
words; neither have I forgotten the words of a certain other 
gentleman from Virginia, who once upon a time spoke to an- 
other resolution of the same sort. Here is that other resolution: 

Resolved, That the Military and Naval Establishments ought to be re- 
duced. 

Listen to what that other gentleman from Virginia said : 

With respect to war, we have, thank God, in the Atlantic a fosse 
wide and deep enough to keep off any immediate danger to our terri- 
tory. The belligerents know as well as we feel that war is out of the 
question. 

A good many of you have been saying exactly that same thing 
which that other gentleman from Virginia said. Do you know 
who he was? He was John Randolph, and what I have just 
read you came from his utterances in this House on March 22, 
1810. 

Yet two years afterwards the War of 1812 broke out, the im- 
passable fosse was crossed by a hostile army, and before the 
war was over the British soldiers had applied the torch to the 
very Chamber where Randolph made his mad appeal to the mad 
vanity of his countrymen. " We can lick all creation," " Every- 
thing ready for the drop of the hat," " Trained citizenry leaping 
to arms " — all the well-known jargon appears in the annals, in- 
cluding the familiar argument that foreign nations would wear 
each other out and would have no strength left to challenge us. 

Great Britain — 

Says the Revolutionary veteran, Potter, in opposing the 
militia bill on March 20, 1810— 

Great Britain has no men to spare to send here to invade our terri- 
tory ; and if she had, she would know better than to do it. And If 
France was ever so much disposed to send an army into this country, 
it would be in vain. She could not send them. 

ABSOLUTELY UNPREPARED, AS USUAL. 

Dawson, of Virginia, on December 13, 1811, arose in his place 
in this House and solemnly uttered this ghastly folly : 

I feel myself authorized to state that we have all the necessaries, all 
the implements, all the munitions necessary for a three years' close 
war against any force which any power can send to this continent. 

Contrast that with Dolly Madison's account a little later of 
our rout at Bladensburg and the burning of the White House by 
Ross, the British general. 
Alas- 
She wrote — 

I can descry only groups of military wandering in all directions, as 
if there was a lack of arms or of spirit to fight for their own fireside. 
78958—14456 



Make no mistake, there was nothing the matter with those 
Pennsylvania and Virginia and Maryland militiamen whom 
Mistress Dolly saw, except that they had not been trained for 
war. 

Six weeks before war was declared John C. Calhoun on May 
6, 1812, told Congress: 

So far from being unprepared, sir, I believe that in four weeks from 
the time that a declaration of war is heard on our frontiers the whole 
of upper and a part of lower Canada will be in our possession. 

History does not record that conquest of Canada ; but it 

records the fact that 100 days after Calhoun six)ke Detroit was 

in the hands of the British, mostly because less than 1,000 of the 

trained citizenry of Ohio and Michigan sprang to the standard 

of Gen. Hull. Thomas Jefferson, who had written to Duane 

that— 

The acquisition of Canada so far as Quebec will be a mere matter of 
' marching — 

conveniently called this disaster " the detestable treason of 
Hull." 

WHY NOT SUMMON GEN. WOTHEKSPOON ? 

Ten weeks ago Maj. Geu. W. W. Wotherspoon, until recently 
Chief of Staff of the United States Army, wrote a solemn warn- 
ing to the Secretary of War in which he gave it as his opinion 
that the United States is short 405,000,000 rounds of rifle ammu- 
nition, 11,210,752 rounds of artillery ammunition, and 1,982 field 
artillery pieces. Even with unlimited appropriations it must 
take several years to supply that deficiency. Gen. Wother- 
spoon's estimate is far higher than any ever before made in the 
United States; but it is founded on a knowledge of facts which 
the present European war has developed. Why has he not been 
summoned as a witness before the Military Committee, I make 
bold to ask? Twice publicly and once by letter I have asked 
Chairman Hay to summon Gen. Wotherspoon, and three times 
Chairman Hay has refused. In my opinion it is unmitigated 
folly to make up this Army bill without questioning the very 
witness whose testimony would be of the greatest value. 

Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARDNER. Certainly. 

Mr. McKELLAR. Is there any other military expert in the 
country who has ever agreed to any of the figures given by Gen. 
Wotherspoon in his report? 

Mr. GARDNER. So far as I know, there is only one who has 
disagreed and that is Gen, Crozier. 

THE MEN BEHIND THE GUNS. 

Now, some gentleman this morning — I think it was the gen- 
tleman from Alabama [Mr. Dent] — said that we did not need a 
standing army of even half a million, much less a million, men. 
That is the same man of straw which President Wilson set up. 
Who has said anything about the necessity of a large standing 
army? I should like to know. Gen. Wotherspoon based his 
estimates on a standing army of 205,000 men. Any statement to 
the contra rj' is simply the exaggeration of persons who seek to 
throw dust into the eyes of the public so as to obscure the 
is.sue. Geu. Wotherspoon estimated that at the outbreak of hos- 
tilities with a great nation we ought to have a foundation of 
205,000 Regulars, the total available force to be 800,000 men. 
78958—14456 



6 

His view is that we ought to have iu this country about 600,000 
trained militiamen or national guardsmen and reservists. 

In other words, Gen. Wotherspoon feels that when war breaks 
out this country must be able to draw at once on 600,000 
civilians who have had some military training. Adding this 
number of civilians to the 205 000 Regulars, we arrive at the 
general's estimate of an army of about 800,000 men. 

Now, based on an army of 800,000 men in the early part of a 
war — that is, before new troops can be trained — 800,000 men 
of more or less military experience, he estimates that an accu- 
mulation of certain kinds of munitions of war is imperatively 
necessary before war breaks out. On page 12 of his report 
as Chief of Staff United States Army, you will find Gen. Woth- 
erspoon's figures showing what he thinks we ought to have, 
and likewise his figures showing what as a matter of fact we 
actually have got. I shall print a table prepared from his fig-, 
ures in connection with this speech. 

RIFLE AMMUNITION. 

For instance, he estimates that before war breaks out we 
ought to accumulate 646,000,000 rounds of rifle ammunition. 
Now, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Hay] in his table this 
morning gives 196,000,000 rounds only as the total amount of 
rifle ammunition which we need to accumulate. Chairman 
Hay's figures are Gen. Crozier's figures. They are his per- 
sonal figures, but the other oflicers in the War Department do 
not agree with Gen. Crozier. Those are not the War Depart- 
ment figures, never have been the War Department figures, and 
if Gen. Crozier gave those figures to your chairman and let 
him believe that they were the War Department figures, he did 
very wrong. 

Mr. HAY. Mr. Chairman, in justice to Gen. Crozier I desire 
to say that he has always stated that those were his figures, 
and that a great many Army officers did not agree with him. 

Mr. GARDNER. Did he not go further than that? 

Mr. HAY. He may have gone further. 

Mr. GARDNER. If the gentleman will observe his own re- 
marks this morning, he will find that he spoke of those as the 
War Department figures. However, the gentleman and I agree, 
and Gen. Crozier admits that those are not the War Depart- 
ment figures. I will tell you directly what the War Department 
figures are. °I want to put this in the Record. 

I think the committee ought to understand — 

This is the statement of Gen. Crozier during the recent hear- 
ings— 

that most officers think that what we have is not enough. I believe 
that there are other things that are so much more pressing that I do 
not feel uneasy about this class of military supplies. 

That is the only defense for the figures in the table of the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Hay]. The General Staff of 
the Army has reckoned that we need 513,430,640 rifle cartridges, 
not to mention some sixty million additional. If our coast- 
defense force is armed as Infantry. This estimate has been ap- 
proved by the War Department. Gen. Wotherspoon places the 
figure at 646,000.000. How much have we actually got? On 
the 1st of July next we shall have in stock 241,000,000 rounds 
of rifle ammunition. The testimony of Gen. Crozier is that it 
would take the entire capacity of the country, public and pri- 
78958—14456 



i 



vate, eight months to niauufaeture 200,000,(K)0. In order to 
get the proper supply which the General Board believes that we 
ought to have when war begins we should have to wait pretty 
nearly a year after war had broken out. 

FIELD ARTILLERY. 

Now we come down to the next item, field guns. This chart 
which I exhibit here shows what we have. And, mind you, we 
have not one single one of those giant guns to our name. You 
have been reading about the 42-centlineter howitzers you have 
been reading about the 315-millimeter guns, and about the 9-inch 
guns which Gen. French has. How many of those titanic can- 
non do you suppose we have? Not one single, solitary one 
No movable artillery bigger than a 6-inch gun in our entire 
military establishment and only 32 of those 6-inch howitzers 
We are experimenting in drafting plans for two different sizes of 
bigger guns. My friends, when you look through the hearings 
you find that we have been doing nothing but experimenting 
and drafting and estimating and reporting for many a year 
This remark applies to submarines and air craft just as much 
asit does to giant field artillery. Imagine the United States 
being always in the experimental stage 

Mr. HUMPHREYS of Mississippi. I want to ask the gen- 
tleman about the quantity of rifle ammunition. How long does 
Gen. Wotherspoon estimate that the 646,000,000 rounds would 
last? 

Mr. GARDNER. That is the accumulation necessary prior 
to the outbreak of the war. Now, as to how long it will last, 
that is a very difficult question to answer. If ammunition is 
fired at the rate it was fired at El Caney, it will last a long 
time. If it should be fired at the rate our troops fired in 
China, It will soon be exhausted. We have not very good 
estimates as to the length of time it would take to exhaust 
rifle ammunition. 

Mr. HUMPHREYS of Mississippi. Have you any estimates 
at all? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes. 

Mr. HAY. Will the gentleman allow me to give him the 
information that we have accumulated as far as we can*? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes. 

4.^^^^ ^^^* '^^^ ^^^* ^^^^^ ^^^ ^as the Russo-Japanese. For 
the first SIX months of that war the Japanese fired 97 rounds 
per man, and the Russians fired 56 rounds per man That in- 
formation comes from a study of that war by the general staff 
or the British Army. 

■ff^'fi^'^^^?;^^- ^^ course Gen. Wotherspoon does not agree 
7r . "^^ gentleman, and neither does the General Staff of the 
United StJites Army. In the attack on the Forbidden City in 
1 eking a few years ago our troops emptied their belts in 40 
minute.s, which means that 100 rounds of rifle ammunition per 
u^I^hI''^ u ^ ^^^y /^les« than three-quarters of an hour. On 
the other hand, at El Caney our troops in five hours only used 
up 16 rounds per man. ^ 

I am very glad that the gentleman has brought forward the 
Russo-Japanese A\ar as a basis for comparison. I myself in- 
tend to instance that war for a like purpose in connection with 
my statements as to artillery and artillery ammunition 
78958—14456 



Mr. TALCOTT of New York. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARDNER. Surely ; but I have only a few minutes. 

Mr. TAI.COTT of New York. Is that the estimate of car- 
tridges for 650,000 rifles? 

Mr. GARDNER. That is the estimate for 642,541 rifles, ac- 
cording to the report of the Chief of Staff. 

Mr. TALCOTT of New York. On the basis of an Army of 
800.000 men? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes ; 205.000 Regulars and the rest reserves 
and militia. I can not give you the exact figures, but I will put 
them in the Record. 

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARDNER. I have only 50 minutes, and I can not yield 
unless the gentleman has something upon this point. 

Mr. HOWARD. I simply want to ask the gentleman how 
long will it take to fire 240,000.000 roimds? 

Mr. GARDNER. I have ju.st answered that question. I said 
it was impossible to judge; it depends upon whether we meet 
conditions of warfare where there is a great deal of infantry 
fire or not. 

FIELD ARTILLERY. 

Now I come to the Field Artillery. Here is what Gen. Wother- 
spoon estimates that we need : Two thousands eight hundred and 
thirty-four artillery pieces. We have on hand and in process of 
manufacture only 852 pieces of artillery. Gen. Wood testified 
before the fortifications conuiiittee last year that the entire 
capacity of this country, working night and day, is 500 guns in 
one year. 

Gen. Wotherspoon has estimated that we must accumulate 
2,834 guns before war breaks out, while the General Staff of 
the United States Army puts the figure at 1,292 guns. How 
does this difference arise? AVhy is it that the General Staff 
presents one estimate and the Chief of the General Staff quite 
another? The reason is that the General Staff made its esti- 
mate before the European war, and it calculated about three 
guns to every thousand men in the field army. The war has 
demonstrated that European armies count on about five guns to 
a thousand men. On that basis of five guns to every thousand 
men and on the basis of an army of 800,000 instead of an army 
of 500,000, the number of guns requisite is increased from 1,292 
to 2,834. Russia, by the way, had 6,000 guns a year ago, Ger- 
many 5,000 guns, and France 4,800 guns. 

Now let us see about the Russo-Japanese War, of which the 
chairman spoke. How many guns do you suppose Russia had 
at the Battle of Mukden on the firing line? Twelve hundred 
and four guns Russia had on the firing line in that one battle 
alone. How many guns do you suppose that Japan had at the 
Battle of Mukden? Nine hundred and ninety-two guns. Twice 
as many as we can turn out in the course of a year with the 
Government arsenals running full blast and every other private 
concern in the country running as well. All these figures can 
be found in the evidence of Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood, former 
Chief of Staff, United States Army, on December 4, 1913, before 
the Military Affairs Committee, and December 9, 1918, before 
the fortifications committee. 
78958—14456 



ARTILLKRY AMMUNITION, 

We come now to the question of field-gun ammunition. Gen. 
Wotherspoon reports tliat we ought to accumulate 11,000,000 
rounds. That seems a large amount. What is the reason for it? 
The General Staff before the European war estimated that we 
ought to accumulate 1,713,240 rounds. We have only got on 
hand and under manufacture 580,000 rounds. But why did Gen. 
Wotherspoon estimate our necessity at 11,000,000 rounds? Be- 
cause of the reports from the European war. We are told that 
the Germans have as a reserve for each gun as many rounds as 
the gun will fire befoi'e becoming worthless. That amounts to 
about 5,000 rounds for each field gun. Very likely that is why 
Gen. Wotherspoon estimates 5,000 rounds for each gun instead 
of 1,800 rounds, which is the estimate made by the General Staff 
before the war. However, we should know his reasons more 
definitely if the committee had not refused to summon him. 

Probably another reason why Gen. Wotherspoon raised his 
estimate to 5,000 rounds is that the report of one of our oflicers 
in Europe — Lieut. Hunsaker, I think — shows, so I am told, that 
a certain French battery whose operations he recently noted fired 
between 500 and 600 shots per gun for four days in succession. 
Yet the extreme output possible for the United States arsenals 
is only 1,800 rounds a day. At the rate of that French battery 
three or four guns could shoot away ammunition as fast as we 
could supply it. 

But suppose we take Gen. Wood's old estimate before the Euro- 
pean war of 200 rounds per day for each gun. Even then do 
you realize that eight guns could shoot away ammunition as 
fast as Uncle Sam could turn it out, working night and day? 
Five hundred and eighty thousand rounds for our Artillery am- 
munition supply ! Why, Russia, in one battle alone, the Battle 
of Mukden, fired away 250,000 rounds — one-half of all that we 
have got in the whole country on hand and in the making. Yet 
orators say that we are prepared for war. 

ARE WE BETTER PREPARED THAN EVER BEFORE? 

Some of the gentlemen who oppose any expenditure of money 
on preparations for our national defense con.sole themselves by 
the comforting thought that we are better prepared than ever 
before in our history. Better armed? Perhaps. More secure? 
Certainly not. 

It may be true — in fact, it is true — that we have more re- 
serve artillery, more reserve rifles, and more reserve ammuni- 
tion than formerly ; but how does that fact alone dispose of the 
question of our security? 

Our reserves in material of war may be quite sufHcieut if 
we never pick a quarrel with any enemy more dangerous than 
Huerta and if we never fight a battle more bloody than the 
Battle of Vera Cruz in the Second Mexican War. But suppose 
we should meet a real enemy. The other great nations have 
been striding forward by furlongs, while we have been crawling 
along by inches, so far as military progress is concerned. Do 
you think that the modest increase in our reserve war material 
justifies the assertion that we are better prepared than ever 
before ? 

78958—14456 



10 

When he armed himself with a sharp umbrella Tweedledee 
was satisfied that he was fitter to fight than at any time of his 
life. So he was, for up to that time he had used his bare 
fists, and now he had an umbrella ; but meanwhile Tweedledum 
had gotten himself a sword. " There's only one sword, you 
know," Tweedledum said to his brother; " but you can have the 
umbrella ; it's quite as sharp." Fortunately for Tweedledee 
the monstrous crow prevented the battle. 

AIR CRAFT. 

After all, I am not so sure that we are better armed than 
we used to be. If a man is going blind, he is not better armed 
just because he gets a more accurate rifle. That is just what 
is happening to our Army. It is going blind. It has no eyes 
with which to see the enemy. " In our present condition of 
unprepa redness, in contact with any foe possessing a proper 
air service, our scouting would be blind." So says the General 
Board of the Navy, and that o'oservation applies to the Army 
just as much. 

Capt. Bristol, head of the air service of the Navy, has com- 
piled some mighty interesting figures which he gave us in his 
testimony. On July 1, 1914, it appears that France had 1,400 
aeroplanes and 22 dirigibles; liussia had 800 aeroplanes and 
1.8 dirigibles, and the other great nations followed suit. 

Since the aeroplane was an American invention, perhaps you 
thinlf that we lead the world in aeroplanes. Well, we do not. 
We have 11 of them in the Army and 12 in the Navy. None of 
them are armored. Not more than 2 are of the same type, so 
it is said. 

As to dirigibles, we have not a single solitary specimen, 
either of the Zeppelin or of any other type. W^hat is more, we 
are not likely to have any Zeppelins until the American people 
get upon tlieir hind legs and holler so that the Government 
deaf-mutes can hear. Zeppelins cost money. Each Zeppelin 
costs pretty nearly a cool million of dollars, and there is a 
deal of pretty spending in a million of dollars. W^aste it on a 
gas balloon, indeed ! No, thank you ; we will be our own gas 
balloons and we will save that money for increased pay where 
the votes grow thickest. This bill gives the Army air service 
the magnificent sum of $300,000 this year. I hope that our 
airmen will feel duly grateful, but they can not buy half a 
Zeppelin with the whole of the money. 

MORE SOLDIERS FOR THE TRENCHES. 

When all is said and done, Mr. Chairman, we finally come down 
to certain facts: Ammunition and field guns are vital enough, 
but the first thing to be done is to get more men and a better 
organization. We do not need a big Regular Army, but we need 
a Regular Army a good deal bigger than we have now. Gen. 
Wotherspoon's estimate of 205,000 is worth examining. 

I do not say that Gen. Wotherspoon is right in asking for 
205,000 men. Very likely he is right, but what we need is a 
commission to examine into this whole question, a commission 
which will summon young officers and young enlisted men and 
say to them, "How long do you think it takes to make a good 
artilleryman? How long do you think it takes to make a good 
78958— 14456 



11 

infantryman?" That is what I want — to find out what the 
younger men think about things. We ought not to base our 
views entirely on what these graybeards think. It stands to 
reason that each one of them is pretty nearly bound to defend 
his own department. Take, for instance, Gen. Crozier. He has 
been for 13 years sitting in his chair as the head of the Bureau 
of Ordnance. I should like to find out what the younger officers 
of the Bureau of Ordnance think. 

THE NAVY FIRST OF ALL. 

Our first line of defense, of course, must be the Navy. That 
stands to reason. If I had $200,000,000 extra to spend to-day on 
theNation'sdefense, I should probably spend about $160,000,000 
of it on the Navy. 

But the battle fleet may be defeated or it may be engaged in 
defending the Panama Canal at the very moment when a hostile 
base is being established 2,000 miles away— that is, supposing 
the enemy is England, because no other nation is strong enough 
on the ocean to divide its fleet. If once the enemy lands and 
establishes a base, nothing can stop him except long lines of 
infantrymen in trenches. 

How long a battle front do you think that our entire field 
Army, Regulars and Militia, could cover? On the old Civil War 
basis of 5,000 men to the mile, our men, if all the militia were 
to turn up, could cover the paltry distance of 30 miles. We 
have in our militia — or National Guard, as it is called — 120,000 
men. Of this number last year 23,000 failed to present them- 
selves for annual inspection. Thirty-one thousand absented 
themselves from the annual encampment, and 44,000 of those 
armed with rifles — and only 111,000 are armed with rifles — 
44,000 never appeared on the rifle range from one year's end to 
the other. Talk about drawing on the citizenry and their 
leaping to arms ! Let me tell you, gentlemen, that 16 of the 
States of this Union failed to supply their quota of troops in the 
Spanish War. Some of them only failed by a few men, but 16 of 
the States of this Union did not supply the entire quota which 
they were called upon to supply. 

Now, do not tell me that an army of 200,000 Regulars is un- 
democratic and is likely to oppress the people. That is all 
demagogic rubbish. Two hundred thousand men can not oppress 
a country of a hundred million population. That would mean 
that 1 soldier could terrorize 500 people. Why, it is folly to 
suggest such a thing, even if the rank and flle of the United 
States Army were willing to go into the oppressing business, 
which would not be the case. If anyone thinks that 1 armed 
soldier can terrorize 500 Americans — men, women, and chil- 
dren — let him now speak or forever hereafter hold his peace. 

THE DOCTRINE OF HUMILITY. 

O you preachers of ihe doctrine of national humility, if any 
one of you for a moment thinks that the people of this country 
agree with you that we ought to be undefended, I should be 
glad to have you accompany me on my speaking tour in March 
and debate the question with me on the same platform. A few 
minutes observation of your audiences would convince you 
of your mistake. I know what I am talking about, for I 
78958—14456 



12 

have already tried several experiments in that line. I am 
not eloquent. I have not even the sublime gift of the gab. 
Hitherto I have never been able to make an audience applaud 
me more than a small fraction of a small second. Hitherto I 
never in my life felt the glowing consciousness that an audience 
wanted me to continue. But on this question of the national de- 
fense I have got my audiences going as if I were William Jen- 
nings Bryan talking prohibition to a convention of patent medi- 
cine dealers. Never before in my life have I had applause as if 
my audience were paid a dollar a clap, and I confess I like the 
new sensation. So I just give fair warning that if any one of 
you pacifico Members of Congress wants to .challenge me to a 
joint debate in the month of March before any audience — black, 
white, yellow, or pink — I am at your ser\ice, and you will not 
have to give me any gate receipts or honorarium or any other 
of the 57 different varieties of high-brow pickings, either. 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, 
78958—14456 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 395 979 4 



